I think this will actually hurt Obama's re-election chances. The government argued that the mandate wasn't a tax. What CJ Roberts did was to say that it actually is a tax... or decided to allow it on the grounds that it's viewed by the court as a tax. This mean it can be overturned like any other tax. In other words, the next president can easily reverse it on day one by executive order. The election in November just became that much more important. You gotta believe the Repubs are going to be organized and turn out to vote now. This will be decided by the taxpayers in November.

Obama is reelected, and we have nationalized healthcare forever, for better or worse. Ugh.

"The justices could deem the penalty tied to the mandate to be a tax and
announce that it is too early to decide the mandate's fate, because the
first penalties will not be due until 2015. An obscure statute, the
Anti-Injunction Act, holds that challenges to taxes are barred until
they are due."

No ruling until 2015

Also would like to add that the Dems are going to go crazy trying to rectify how they presented it as it not being a tax, but how THAT's the only mechanism used by the Court to justify it's Constitutionality.

One of the findings in the opinion is that people can simply refuse to "pay" the tax. This is confusing to me. Is it truly as simple as it sounds?? How would one simply "refuse" to pay a tax??

WBD--VERY interesting observation. I heard about the A-I act in the last few days...So do you think this decision is just a huge piece of posturing and "kicking the can down the road" until the "tax" kicks in? If that's the case, I wonder if CJ Roberts is just way smarter than everyone else or if he actually biffed it like everyone on the right thinks.

"I think this will actually hurt Obama's re-election chances. The government argued that the mandate wasn't a tax."

I don't agree. The GOP was hanging their hat on the bill being overturned. Romney alluded to this by saying earlier this week that if the bill was struck down, "Obama's presidency was a failure". It is more spin by the GOP similar to the victory they claimed earlier this week with the Arizona ruling. The mandate, call it a tax if you choose, was going to hit the middle-class (along with others) if they chose not to purchase health insurance. By calling it a tax, mandate, whatever; it was never secret that people would have to pay if they did not have insurance. Tax is an evil word, so this is the only way the GOP can salvage face.

I never see how Romney could have won the argument over Obamacare. He passed the same thing in MA as governor. So it's good enough for MA, but not the other 49 states?

the difference, Jeremy, is that it's a state not the country. If you don't like the Mass. law, there are 49 other states to live in and still be in the U.S.

that's really a big distinction

I have 29 employees in one of my businesses. If this thing holds up, by the end of 2014, I will have 24.
I will then let the free market decide if I want to offer insurance or not. I don't think that I'm alone on this. Obamacare will not work out the way they say it will.
My premiums have gone up 35% since 2008.

What's next?
will one day the Feds say that we all have to have a chip under our skin to identify everyone?
play this out. It's not a good thing

I pose the question again. What is stopping the next President from just not collecting/enforcing the "fines".? That precedent has been set.......

I will then let the free market decide if I want to offer insurance or not. I don't think that I'm alone on this. Obamacare will not work out the way they say it will.
My premiums have gone up 35% since 2008.

I personally prefer to see this shot down so we can continue the trek towards UHC. If you really want to see something done about excessive inflation in the HC/HI market then you need to attack it at the economic level. That means changing the market forces in the same way that caused house prices to crash. Kill the revenue source.

End the govt welfare to the HC industry by eliminating all tax deductions for HI, and taxing employer HI benefits. Give the employee the option of taking the taxed benefit or taking the taxed income instead. Then the market will have to respond to people exiting by controlling prices.

"the difference, Jeremy, is that it's a state not the country. If you don't like the Mass. law, there are 49 other states to live in and still be in the U.S."

Is that what Romney said to the residents of MA as he signed it into law? Again, Romney obviously saw the need for the program or he would not have supported Romneycare. So now you are running for president and that changes; hypocrisy at its finest. In case you forgot the GOP primaries, Romneycare kept away many of the "conservative" base from joining his camp.

No only on the capital gains. But only on the capital gains after a huge exemption for a personal residence. IOW... people who make capital gains on investment property who never had to pay a medicare tax on that sort of income, while working people always have.

the difference is fed gov't and state gov't.
I am not defending Romney. I'm just saying that there are those of us that want a small fed gov't. Let the states take up the difference. Not a new concept.

My chip comment had nothing to do with current law. This ruling opens the door and gives the feds a potential free ride to "force" us to buy or become a member of whatever they want us to...

I wasn't arguing your point John.
I don't see taxing it as capital gains as a good thing. These tax thresholds can change. This cracks the door open. If the feds run this program the way the run the post office, for example, they will need to get more funds from somewhere. It seems like a dangerous slope to play on.

I wasn't arguing your point John.
I don't see taxing it as capital gains as a good thing. These tax thresholds can change. This cracks the door open. If the feds run this program the way the run the post office, for example, they will need to get more funds from somewhere. It seems like a dangerous slope to play on.

If you make most of your income as earned income *and* capital gains don't have a medicare tax, then taxing capital gains for medicare looks like a good thing. If the govt is being run poorly, then why not get capital gain earners on board to make a change as well?

Well, I expect that from politicians. They are the result of cause and effect. If the only way to be a politician is to be a liar, then that's what they are.

The public is my own kind, and the problem is that we are too conditioned to play the game and don't seem to understand the only power we have is being united. Isn't there any issue that we can agree on and demand our politicians address with a single voice? That should be our goal.

For example, we could make a radical "fair" change to HC if we simply agreed to a law that a HC provider should be required to charge the same price for the same service to everyone. That would eliminate the divide and conquer approach that we now have. It would give the power and benefits of competition to the people, instead of to the HI companies.

If a HI company negotiates radically low rates with a group of HC providers then everyone could use those same HC providers and pay the same rates. It would eliminate HC providers trying to recoup their profits from those without insurance. I've seen lab tests billed at over $400 when the actual charge to my HI company was less than $40. There really wouldn't even be a need for anything but catastrophic coverage if HC bills were what my HI pays. When I look at the actual bills amounts that my HI pays HC is really affordable.

HC/HI is not a free market industry. Wouldn't you like it if tax payers could deduct your restaurant bills from their taxable income before FICA no less? I bet that would be great for business.

"don't you get tired of Obama lying all of the time?
should I list some?"

This is the kind of circular reasoning I hear from GOP/conservatives on a constant basis. I mean are you under some kind of delusions of granduer that the Republican party doesn't lie also? We could probably go back and forth over who lied and what they lied about, in both parties. I mean is the GOP the perfect party? I tend to be skeptical towards any politician.

Bottomline is our HC system is broken and it needed fixing. Repub's chose not to be bipartisan and address the issue and they are eating crow today. And Cliff, the GOP-controlled congress' approval is substantially lower than the president's.

By the way, why was Individual Mandate not a bad word when the GOP (Newt Gingrich in particular) first mentioned it in the 90's?

wow. I don't have time for a complete response...
The GOP approval rating is low because of the media spin that the repubs and tea party or combative. The truth is that the Prez doesn't care what they have to say. He even said as much during these HC debates in 2008. They don't want Obama running a-muck with every social program under the sun.
The truth is that Obama has added 5 trillion in debt of his own, and hasn't submitted a budget under 1 trillion for the past 3 years

for me, mandate has always been a bad word

all politicians lie.
Obama was elected under the premise of change: transparency, reduce or eliminate lobbiest, bring both parties together, reduce debt.
Has has done none of that. If it weren't for his feels good speeches, he would not have ever been elected. Those that re-elect him will vote against Romney as opposed to voting for a sitting President who has a great plan.....he doesn't

i am amazed that so many people just ignore the facts. \

in 2008 he was arguing with Clinton and said that a mandate for HC would be akin to mandating that everyone buy a house......recently he said that because of the constitution and other laws, he couldn't just grant illegal students a waiver......

He admits that he doesn't have the authority to do stuff, then he does it.

One and Done for all, until we get someone who can lead, and get partisan results

Our very real medical crisis has been the product of massive government intervention, state and federal, throughout the century; in particular, an artificial boosting of demand coupled with an artificial restriction of supply. The result has been accelerating high prices and deterioration of patient care. And next, socialized medicine could easily bring us to the vaunted medical status of the Soviet Union: everyone has the right to free medical care, but there is, in effect, no medicine and no care.

Our very real medical crisis has been the product of massive government intervention, state and federal, throughout the century; in particular, an artificial boosting of demand coupled with an artificial restriction of supply.

I agree with this, and you forgot subverted economic prinicples with tax free HI benefits/contributions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tucker_McElroy

The result has been accelerating high prices and deterioration of patient care.

Again I agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tucker_McElroy

And next, socialized medicine could easily bring us to the vaunted medical status of the Soviet Union: everyone has the right to free medical care, but there is, in effect, no medicine and no care.

Why would I want to read a book by a person that makes no sense? There are already plenty of countries that have proven that statement wrong. Our record on healthcare vs per capita cost is the worst of any modern country. The deterioration of our health is due to exploiting the psychological and physical weaknesses of humans for profit. A perfectly legitimate capitalist principle.

the reality is that Obama wants a single payer system. These health insurance exchanges are going to be set up that will have to cover people. They will cover
preexisting conditions but be limited in the amount that they can charge. These exchanges will then begin to disappear. It will be cost prohibitive for them to stay afloat.
Eventually health insurance companies as we know them today, will fold. The government will step in and say.....we can't let people go without insurance.

woo-la!

A federal government insurance provider with no competition

Europe here we come

woo hoo

aren't we all excited!?

Obama has stated that a European system was his goal, but it would have to be one step at a time

health care is like no other commodity. We are all insatiable crackheads when it comes to medical care.

Take electicity of water or gasoline or even food by comparison. There's a subsistance level that everyone can get by on. That level is very high in America compared to other parts of the world, but it's there.

With healthcare, on the other hand, there is no limit. There is no "reasonable amount" of healthcare that each person can consume. We are ALL addicted to the best possible care. The most expensive procedures, the most heroic lifesaving measures. Rescue helicopters, Heart transplants, bone marrow transplants, premature birth, end of life ICU care. Want cheaper healthcare? Lets quit covering all of that stuff on anybody's insurance.

That ish ain't expensive because of the absence of tort reform, it's expensive because it's expensive. You don't get a shadetree heart transplant, and the rescue copter isn't some janky riptide military surplus p.o.s. We expect that cutting edge, expensive care delivered by the best trained professionals in the world should be affordable, no matter how much we need.

The deterioration of our health is due to exploiting the psychological and physical weaknesses of humans for profit. A perfectly legitimate capitalist principle.

oh my God! give me a ****in break......

You need a break and a clue.

You people are seriously short on understanding anything beyond what your media lords tell you. There was only one justice on the supreme court as intelligent as me. I've been telling you guys all along that tax deductible HI insurance benefits are a mistake. The fact is that Roberts understood that the "mandate" is exactly what we've had all along. And that the conservatives are 100% behind it.

Don't you understand that a tax deduction for buying HI is pretty much exactly the same as a tax penalty for not buying it? Very little difference. A tax deduction for buying HI is the govt serving the HI corps as a goon coercing payments. Even that bombastic moron Alex Jones gets that part. Conservatives are too stupid to pay attention to if there weren't so many of them f*king up the country.

At least liberals don't discredit themselves by ranting against what they want.

the best part is, who do you guys think pays for all of this expensive care provided to people without health insurance when they come to the ER? guess what, that bill doesnt go away. WE pay for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

health care is like no other commodity. We are all insatiable crackheads when it comes to medical care.

Take electicity of water or gasoline or even food by comparison. There's a subsistance level that everyone can get by on. That level is very high in America compared to other parts of the world, but it's there.

With healthcare, on the other hand, there is no limit. There is no "reasonable amount" of healthcare that each person can consume. We are ALL addicted to the best possible care. The most expensive procedures, the most heroic lifesaving measures. Rescue helicopters, Heart transplants, bone marrow transplants, premature birth, end of life ICU care. Want cheaper healthcare? Lets quit covering all of that stuff on anybody's insurance.

That ish ain't expensive because of the absence of tort reform, it's expensive because it's expensive. You don't get a shadetree heart transplant, and the rescue copter isn't some janky riptide military surplus p.o.s. We expect that cutting edge, expensive care delivered by the best trained professionals in the world should be affordable, no matter how much we need.

That ish ain't expensive because of the absence of tort reform, it's expensive because it's expensive. You don't get a shadetree heart transplant, and the rescue copter isn't some janky riptide military surplus p.o.s. We expect that cutting edge, expensive care delivered by the best trained professionals in the world should be affordable, no matter how much we need.

Well this is a bit half baked. It's expensive for the same reason as the mortgage industry and govt conspired to make houses expensive and created the bubble. If you throw money at a market sector the price goes up. It could be cheaper, but the public doesn't understand the principles of economics. Corporations do. And they know exactly how to get our politicians to make laws that make what they sell expensive.

1) The issue with HC is NOT insurance, it is usage. People want free service plans. Insurance is never meant to be used. Try that with your car or home.

2) Money in the system is what makes HC expensive. Not a damn thing has ever got cheaper by throwing more money at a service provider. In the midwest, you can see a doctor at a very reasonable price. My wife was seen, treated given a perscription and the medicine for under $100. We were on vacation and she end up with strep throat pretty bad. She went in to the ER in Cali for a chest pains and the bill was over $8000. All they did was hook up a piece of common equipment to her. HC did not get expensive until more and more people got HC insurance. Now you have a captive audience with a agency that will pay. It is basic business folks. A doctor can see 1000 people, the area has 10000 paying customers so the doctor raises his rates so only maybe 1500 of them can afford him. Maximize profit and move on. The insurance companies are only paying out what it's customers are using and keeping money in the bank for the statistical payouts. That is all they are doing. The doctors (hospitals mainly) and the Pharma industry is making out. Having insurance in the hands of more people is only going to make it cost more not less.

3) Hope you did not plan on using that extra $300 or more a month it is going to cost you for this.

4) If you work for a small business you better hope the owner does not hear about how you voted or you may find yourself on the exit line. They will have to cut down on workers but that's ok, there will be less money in circulation so there will be less money anyway.

5) The whole what if people go to the ER angle is a complete fraud. That is a completely made up cost. They try and play it off as making up cost based on people who did not pay. Biggest lie of the century. Almost everything they do is with A) equipment they own anyway or they would not have been a hospital in the first place and B) it is with pretty much intellectual property anyway that are already on staff. Not a ton of durable goods leaving the ER for $8000.

Finally is 6) we have had socialized medicine for years. It is called the county hospital. My wife had 2 surgeries when she was a young adult and they make you pay on a sliding scale. It is just none of these "use more of other peoples money" ballers want to sit in country because it is not to their standards but that is what socialize medicine is. Also, medicare (our socialized insurance) has 25% of the population but 50% of the cost of all healthcare.

Did you know you already pay 2 or 3% of your wages for your whole life into socialize medicine already. It is your FICA tax which also includes Social Security.

Actually that is a very good question for you dems:

Why is it that ALL American citizens pay 3% of their life time wages in the Medicare (100% participation for life) but yet healthcare costs for that 25% of the population demographic continues to skyrocket? I thought more people into the insurance pool made healthcare costs go down? The dang answer is right in front of you, but, you are too blind to see. More of your wealth being spread to the world instead of to Americans. Viva Obama.......

Well this is a bit half baked. It's expensive for the same reason as the mortgage industry and govt conspired to make houses expensive and created the bubble. If you throw money at a market sector the price goes up. It could be cheaper, but the public doesn't understand the principles of economics. Corporations do. And they know exactly how to get our politicians to make laws that make what they sell expensive.

I don't disagree that there are some ridiculous pricing issues (why is rack rate so much more than PPO rate?), but my point is that we (as a society) need to decide how much is a reasonable amount of care. Should everyone get a heart transplant, leukemia treatment, etc etc?

does EVERYONE have a RIGHT to the most care science can offer?

I dunno.

(and I'm far and away an advocate for universal healthcare ... albeit not a plan that panders to the insurance cos like this plan does).

I figured "chicken little", Someone would chime in with his nonsense. It must have took him a few days for it all to set in to come up with his load of bull. Again more blame on Obama and the democrats for instituting a plan devised by Gingrich and the GOP in the 90's and by Romney 8 years ago. Individual mandate wasn't a bad word until it became part of Obamacare. Particularly when Bush and the GOP used it for Medicare part D.

Also, I am almost certain it is illegal to fire someone for how they voted, even in Right To Work states. More chicken little BS from Delta. Anyways I figured you and the family would be holed up in the bunker waiting for the rapture.

Obama simply did his job with the constraints that we the people placed upon him. Including conservatives that love their "unconstitutional" tax deductions and tax free benefits for HI. A *true* conservative would be placing the blame equally upon their own party.

John, I agree
now it's our job to fix it
One and Done to all 'till it's fixed!!

Jeremy, this will not improve under Obamacare. Hospitals will be graded based on performance. Hospitals will then receive Medicare payment based on their grade. "...Kenneth E. Raske, president of the Greater New York Hospital Association, said the formula “tends to discriminate against inner-city hospitals with large numbers of immigrant, poor and uninsured patients.”"
This also might lead hospitals to avoid high risk patients.
There is also the concern of more hospital emergency room overcrowding

several studies and comments from professionals out there that support these claims

conservatives just simply use the tax code that they are given. I would be in favor of a flat tax, no deductions and a limited power of our congress to tax

Everyone uses the tax code given. I have heard virtually nobody other than myself ever say that HI should not be deductible. Flat tax and deductions where the govt gives tax money to market sectors (HI/HC and Mortgages) are not even in the same ballpark. You do understand that if there were no deductions then pensions must be taxed as well. Say goodbye to a 12K+ Dow.

How in hell is tax break unconstitutional? It is YOUR money. How is giving you YOUR money a break? That is the difference between sane people and the insane. When you earn money or goods, it is YOURS. It did not start with the government. The government is supposed to serve the people, not the people serve the government.

Jeremy, did the facts strike home. You went right to deflection yet again and name calling. Do you realize with everything that is brought up, you always say simpson's did? Again, tell me. Medicare has 100% life long participation and an exclusion that you can not use it for basically 40 t0 45 years. That certainly should have stopped the rise of healthcare right? Nope. Medicare has 25% of all insured people in it with 50% of all insurance payouts in the country as a whole with all insured considered. Your hospital either has poor management or they are faking their numbers. IF they were 12 million in the whole they could not pay their light bill.

How in hell is tax break unconstitutional? It is YOUR money. How is giving you YOUR money a break? That is the difference between sane people and the insane.

OK, now that we both agree that you are insane. It's not your money. It belongs to the govt. And the govt is telling you to buy insurance or pay the money to the govt . The same either way.

BTW, the Texas GOP has officially claimed it's against teaching children critical thinking skills. Time for the rest of the you to come clean.

Quote:

When you earn money or goods, it is YOURS.

That's between you and the IRS. It's a fact that it's not yours. Even when they claim it's for your retirement, the SCOTUS has clearly stated that it does not belong to you. Go ahead and be willfully stupid. It doesn't change reality.

"BTW, the Texas GOP has officially claimed it's against teaching children critical thinking skills. Time for the rest of the you to come clean."

from what I can find as an explanation, they used the words "critical thinking skills" because that is what the educational program that they are opposed to is called. Reading further, however, their own words within the document don't support the notion that these words were merely taken out of context.

If this is truly how the brass within the GOP think, they won't last long in power.
Contrary to what many outside of Texas believe, we don't want our children to be brain dead tote the party line robots. We also, however, know all to well of the leftist leaning teachings in many of our countries finer institutions of higher learning. The goal for me, for my high school aged children (who are both in the top 1% of their very large classes), is for them to be able to challenge their professors and not be hypnotically indoctrinated into the beliefs of any one way of thinking (no matter which way they vote). That does include challenging my beliefs to by the way.

What does the Texas GOP have anything to do with this. More deflection. Looks like Cliff shot you down anyway.

This is point is completely what separates democrats and republicans. Republicans do not believe that what they own is governments and will fight the government from taking it. It is called freedom. You pay agreed upon taxes to help provide services. Democrats believe everything you have is what the government allows you to have and are fine with that.

jeremy, these are all my own thoughts and words from my reading and observations. Look up the cost of medicare. Do you even know what medicare is? Do you know what FICA is? Please tell me where I am wrong. I want to be educated. Is it not true that medicare is paid for by all of use for life? Is it not true that you can not use it until you retire? Has the cost of healthcare gone down for those in Medicare? Go look it up. It has 25% of all insured but 50% of all pay outs. Now you may say it is demographics. I can give you that but it is no secret and the politicians even tell you that healthcare costs in these programs have gone up and up. You can do no better than 100% of the people paying in right? Isn't that the argument for Obamacare? More people buy in thus it will be cheaper right? How about breaking down where I am wrong. You can even get your genius buddy John to help you point out were I am wrong.

Heathcare is the only industry that won't tell you what you will pay prior to being billed. I wish I had a business that could just charge whatever I felt like and raise my secret prices whenever I choose (very regularly!) People now get charged vastly different amounts for exactly the same treatment because they cannot "shop" the secret prices. They've created quite the system. Keep it "complicated" enough that the average person can't figure it out. When you're bleeding you really don't have time to shop. I'm reminded of the lady who went to Rideout in Marysville for a rattlesnake bite and she got a $72,000 bill. who is worse? doctors or rattlesnakes?

This is point is completely what separates democrats and republicans. Republicans do not believe that what they own is governments and will fight the government from taking it. It is called freedom. You pay agreed upon taxes to help provide services.

Thanks for the strawman Delta. Let me shoot that down for you. First of all, the argument is about whether the tax is Constitutional, not whether liberals fight for what they own. Second, I hear liberals fighting to cut defense spending and occupying nations all the time. I'm also sure if you poll liberals they would like to see govt agencies like Homeland Security and the FDA have funding cuts as well. Not to mention the expenses associated with the Patriot Act.

Quote:

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

Democrats believe everything you have is what the government allows you to have and are fine with that.

Let me continue in that same vein of stupidity.... Republicans believe that when they are getting what they want it's constitutional and when they aren't it's unconstitutional. Apparently they think that the Constitution is a document that describes their wants and desires.

Constitutional or not, all the health care plan will do is limit competition, increase costs, reduce preventative care, and raise taxes. Only a few large insurance companies—if any at all-- will be able to survive this. And for those of you middle-class voters who are really believe this administration likes you, just notice these two taxes.

A tax of 10% on indoor tanning services. This has been in place for two years, since the summer of 2010. (ATR.org)

A 40% tax on "Cadillac Health Care Plans" starting in 2018.Those whose employers pay for all or most of comprehensive healthcare plans (costing $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for families) will have to pay a 40% tax on the amount their employer pays. The 2018 start date is said to have been a gift to unions, which often have comprehensive plans. (ATR.org)

Ron, I don't disagree with you on that first paragraph at all. And since I'm against tax free HI benefits I can't really complain about the tax on the Cadillac plan.

I also don't understand how people can point to something like the Cadillac plan tax when they've never complained about all the other inequitable tax laws. For example where is the outrage that some people get total tax free benefits for buying HI when others can't get the same tax benefit if they buy ins on their own? Where's the outrage that people can contribute more to a 401K plan with high management fees than they can to an IRA with no management fees. Heck I was considering opting out of my employers HI and buying HI that suited me until I thought about the tax implications and realized the govt was essentially forcing me into my employers plan.

The only thing more astonishingly impressive than your position, opinion, and analysis here is the level of ignorance that you apply. Your lack of understanding, comprehension of meaning, and intent of the United States Constitution is truly impressive. Have either one of you actually read the ruling in its entirety? How could these two diametrically opposed opinions exist if both groups were actually trying to honor their oaths of office?

Quote:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

It is very clear that one group is subverting their oath and duty and instead acting as advocates for their own desired outcome.

People here appear to be vehemently opposed to the Free Market, liberty, and self accountability. You make statement after statement, opinion after opinion, and give anecdotal evidence after anecdotal evidence to support your position. The problem is that other small minded, ignorant people before you had the same idea, they screwed up the system so bad with their governmental regulation, interdiction, and malfeasance that it is no wonder the system is screwed up. I'm not classifying these small minded, ignorant people into political parties, because they belong to both parties. People here want to keep score and talk about who won, but has everyone actually considered the impact of what they are advocating for?

that's funny, because Obama and his minions called it a penalty to get the bill passed. The Court then called it a tax. Now, the Obama camp is again calling it a penalty. If they insist that it's a penalty, then apparently it's unconstitutional.

"And for those of you middle-class voters who are really believe this administration likes you, just notice these two taxes.

A tax of 10% on indoor tanning services. This has been in place for two years, since the summer of 2010. (ATR.org)"

How does this affect the majority of voters? I mean is this an issue we are going to see raised in the coming months? Are middle-class the only people subjected to the tanning bed tax? This is atrocious. What's next? A tax of 10% on botox injections?

Health care is always going to be screwed up because of the surplus of health care lobbyists. There will never be a solution to satisfy everyone, but I believe this is a start. Hopefully, the GOP and teabaggers will realize, while there is a majority opposed to the healthcare law, there is an even larger majority of Americans not satisfied with the current state of healthcare in the US; they want something done. The democrats introduced their bill, the repubs sat on there ass, as they have done over the past two years, and did nothing. Now they want to repeal Obamacare, yet offer no alternative to our current system despite what the people want. And now they are going to have another repeal vote in July, which won't accomplish anything, and refuse to move forward. No wonder their approval rating is slightly worse than the ratings for Bristol Palin's reality show.

John, that's a good question. One that I bet the Court will have to answer again....

Jeremy, I agree that HC might always be screwed up in someones eyes.

By you saying that the GOP sits on their asses, is just proof that the Obama propaganda is and has been in full swing, and appears to be working.....at least for you.

I remember the televised meeting between the dems and the repubs. I also remember how the Dems and Obama were not interested in a damn thing that the repubs said. I remember how it was an obvious political/media move to meet publicly. They didn't even try to disguise it. I also recall the behind closed door meetings with the dems shortly before and after.

It took me all of 2 minutes on Google to come up with the Repubs talking points and plans for the bill. All of which were ignored. I seem to recall several times that repubs had the "floor" and were cut off mid sentence.

If you remember it differently, that's just not very observant on your part.

Party lines aside, here's what I don't get:

I have a whole list but here are some summarizing points

the CBO now estimates that more Americans than they had originally thought, will lose their private health insurance
the CBO now says that these taxes/fines will total $45 billion instead of $34 billion and businesses will pay $96 million instead of the projected $80 million
the CBO, in March of this year, estimated that Obamacare would cost $1.76 trillion over the next 10 years, instead of the $940 billion that Obama and the dems have
told the public
in early 2012, Obama has asked for an additional $111 billion in subsides to help poor people buy insurance
New York times reports that doctors are "leaving private practice in droves" and 9 out of 10 doctors don't recommend the profession
between now and 2019 there will be 17 new taxes related to Obamacare
including a punitive 2.3% medical device tax
a "slush" fund to fund a $6 billion network of nonprofit co-ops will compete against private insurers. This "slush" fund is being parceled out as loans to these co-ops in 8 states currently, with more to come. Kaiser Health says that the Obamacare co-op overseers are already predicting that there will be nearly a 40% defalt on these loans.....

furthermore

do you remember the televised congressional meeting between Geithner and Paul Ryan?
Geithner pretty much agreed that Obama and the democrat's plan doesn't address the problem of the economy shutting down in 2027. He agreed that after 2020, things look really bad. He voiced the opinion of the President and democrats that their "budget" gives them 10 year to "figure it out".

Ryan's plan, and I'm not necessary giving a complete thumbs up to it, according to the chart that both men agreed is accurate, showed that his plan followed an almost identical path for the next 10 years but dramatically reduces the deficit after that. It even contains a range of years that include our nation being debt free.
Ryan, by the way, has revised his plan in order to try to gain bi-partisan support. The Obama team doesn't disagree that Ryan's plan will work, they just don't like where the cuts land.

I could go on and on about this. I could even quote CBO's projections on both Obama's budget and Ryan's plan. Ryan wins hands down in terms of #'s. The CBO even admits that during the debates, it didn't have all of the numbers. Hmmmm, I wonder why Reid's group didn't turn those over....

The CBO even changed the economic variables a few different ways in order to project several possible outcomes of both budgets (interest rate/short and long term, debt to GDP ratio....that by the way, is is projected to be at best 101% by 2021 and possibly as high as 250% under the Obama entitlement laden budget.....etc...)
These aren't my numbers or Limbaugh's or Beck's. These are from the office that Obama and the dems preached as gospel when they favored their arguement

if you need more #'s. look them up.....
This is why I, for one, want Obama out of office
worst case, I hope that repubs get a majority in both house and senate.

G.O.P. Counters With a Health Plan of Its Own
TWITTER
LINKEDIN
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
PRINT
REPRINTS
SHARE

By ROBERT PEAR and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
Published: November 3, 2009
WASHINGTON — House Republicans have come up with an answer to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, drafting an alternative health care bill that would reward states for reducing the number of uninsured, limit damages in medical malpractice lawsuits and allow small businesses to band together and buy insurance exempt from most state regulation.

Enlarge This Image

Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
Republicans reviewing their health care bill. Debate on the Democrats' plan could start soon.

A blog from The New York Times that tracks the health care debate as it unfolds.
More Health Care Overhaul News

Top Discussions: The Public Option | Medicare and the Elderly | A Single-Payer System
Related
Outline of Republicans’ Health Care Vision (November 4, 2009)
Health Care Debate Focuses on Legal Immigrants (November 4, 2009)
Health Bills Aim a Light on Doctors’ Conflicts (November 4, 2009)
House Bill Would Assure Workers Paid Sick Days (November 4, 2009)
In its opening section, the Republican bill, which has no chance of passing, promises to lower health care costs and expand insurance coverage “without raising taxes, cutting Medicare benefits for seniors, adding to the national deficit, intervening in the doctor-patient relationship or instituting a government takeover of health care.”

The bill defines the differences between Republicans and Democrats, who intend to take up their bill on the House floor this week, after resolving intramural disputes over abortion and immigration.

The Republican bill differs from the Democratic measure in that it would not require people to obtain insurance or require employers to offer it. It is almost surely cheaper than the House Democrats’ bill because, unlike that proposal, it would not expand Medicaid or offer federal subsidies to low- and middle-income people to help them buy insurance. Nor would the Republican bill impose new taxes.

The House Republican bill would not explicitly prohibit insurers from denying coverage to people because of pre-existing medical conditions, even though many Republicans have said they agree with Democrats that the federal government should outlaw such denials.

House Republicans completed work on their measure as Senate Democratic leaders acknowledged that Senate floor debate on their bill was likely to slip to December, making it virtually impossible for Congress to achieve President Obama’s goal of enacting major health legislation this year.

If Congress is still wrangling over the legislation next spring, many of the 2010 midterm elections could turn into referendums on Mr. Obama’s health policies.

Pressed about the timetable, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, declined to predict when Congress might complete a bill.

“We’re not going to be bound by any timelines,” Mr. Reid said at a news conference. “We need to do the best job we can for the American people.” He said that the bill would be posted on the Internet and that lawmakers would have ample time to study it.

Senate Democratic aides said it was still possible, but increasingly unlikely, that Congress would send a bill to Mr. Obama by Christmas.

The House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, said his bill would “lower costs and expand access at a price our nation can afford.”

In a few ways, the House Republican bill resembles the one headed for the House floor. It would allow young adults to stay on their parents’ health plans at least through age 24, compared with 26 under the Democrats’ bill.

House Republicans, like the Democrats, would prohibit insurers from imposing annual or lifetime limits on spending for covered benefits. And they would prohibit insurers from canceling or rescinding coverage after a person became sick unless the person had intentionally concealed “material facts” about a medical condition.

Democrats, who have been hearing unofficial accounts of the Republican bill, said it was too little too late.

Representative Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, said the Republican bill would perpetuate the status quo for people with pre-existing conditions. And for millions of people who would still be unable to afford insurance, he said, the Republican message was, “Sorry, you’re out of luck.”

Reid H. Cherlin, a White House spokesman, said the House Republican bill “does nothing to provide more stability and security for people with insurance.”

The bill would offer $50 billion in federal “incentive payments” over the next 10 years to states that reduce the cost of health insurance or the proportion of their residents who are uninsured.

The bill would also make it easier for insurers to sell insurance across state lines. Policies would be subject to laws in a company’s home state, but would be exempt from many of the consumer protection laws, rating rules and benefit mandates in other states where the company sold coverage.

Republicans would also allow small businesses to pool their insurance buying power through “association health plans,” sponsored by trade and professional associations and chambers of commerce. These plans would have “sole discretion” over what services to cover.

Consumer groups, state officials and Blue Cross and Blue Shield executives have historically opposed such association health plans, saying they could engage in risky practices free from state regulation.

The House Republican bill would offer $15 billion to states to establish high-risk pools, for people who could not otherwise obtain coverage, and reinsurance programs, under which states act as a backstop to private insurers. Under a reinsurance program, a state pays a large share of the cost if claims — for an individual or a group — exceed some threshold.

The House Republican whip, Eric Cantor of Virginia, said high-risk pools and reinsurance programs would “guarantee that all Americans, regardless of pre-existing conditions or past illnesses, have access to affordable care.” Health policy experts say insurers can lower premiums if state reinsurance programs protect them against the risk of catastrophic costs.

In addition, the House Republican bill would impose new restrictions on consumer lawsuits against doctors, hospitals and makers of drugs and medical devices. In general, such lawsuits would have to be filed within three years after an injury became evident.

The bill would set a $250,000 limit on noneconomic damages, for physical and emotional pain and suffering. It would establish new hurdles for consumers to obtain punitive damages and would limit contingency fees for plaintiffs’ lawyers.

"The Republican bill differs from the Democratic measure in that it would not require people to obtain insurance or require employers to offer it. It is almost surely cheaper than the House Democrats’ bill because, unlike that proposal, it would not expand Medicaid or offer federal subsidies to low- and middle-income people to help them buy insurance. Nor would the Republican bill impose new taxes.

The House Republican bill would not explicitly prohibit insurers from denying coverage to people because of pre-existing medical conditions, even though many Republicans have said they agree with Democrats that the federal government should outlaw such denials."

Again, I think everyone should have to have insurance. People should not be denied becasue of pre-existing medical conditions. I am almost certain that the majority of Americans will take that stance, so what makes the GOP bill better?

Restrictions on lawsuits have done nothing to lower medical costs, look at Texas which has had this in place for several years. In fact, medical costs have risen. And let's say a doctor prescribes you a drug for X-condition, and you take it. In ten years they find that this drug causes inreparable harm, say to the heart. So you don't feel you are due some sort of compensation from the drug company that made billions of dollars from said drug because it has been three years? With that sort of legislation, you can expect a huge influx of new drugs hitting the US market that may or may not be safe, what would be the downfall for pharmacuetical companies? And that's what we need in the Oxycotin and Xanax capital of the world. And 250,000 dollars seems pretty low for the price of a human life, but whatever.

Here is something I pulled directly from your Politifact link you posted:

"• It might reduce consumer protections . The flip side of several of the Republicans' new consumer options is a decrease in regulation. If insurance policies are sold across state lines, critics say, there could be an incentive for insurers to locate in the least-regulated states, allowing them to scale back coverage. And the Republican bill, unlike the Democratic bills, doesn't specifically bar insurers from excluding pre-existing conditions, even though that policy has broad support in both parties. "

The GOP mantra, "Less Regulation".

"Geithner pretty much agreed that Obama and the democrat's plan doesn't address the problem of the economy shutting down in 2027."

I googled this and have only found reference to this in conservative-end-of-the-world blogs and OpEd's. Not to mention; SS, Medicare, and Medicaid are and will continue to be the biggest contributer's to the US debt. When Rick Perry called SS a "ponzi scheme", his campaign was effectively ended. Has Romney proposed an end to these programs?

Cliff, I misspoke about the GOP "sitting on their asses" doing nothing and thanks for the clarification.

that's all I was trying to point out. I wasn't saying that their bill was the answer. In my opinion, due to the path of our national debt (and other factors), it's also obvious that the Dems bill wasn't the answer either.

Watch the videos. I watched the entire Ryan exchange when it was happening, Geithner did't instill much confidence.

I know that the main stream media didn't report much about it. No surprise really.

I posted this not to be combative. Obama supporters are always saying that the opponents are misinformed, or have their head in the sand, or are racist.....etc.....

My opinions have been formed by: Obama's own words, Surveys that have been taken, our own governments assessment (CBO, Congressional committees....), how policies or the political climate is affecting people in my daily life....

If you take the conglomerate of this information, I think that any "critical thinking" individual can at least understand why there are many that are concerned....

I posted this not to be combative. Obama supporters are always saying that the opponents are misinformed, or have their head in the sand, or are racist.....etc.....

I think we all have our head in the sand.

You can't lower healthcare costs unless you do 1 of 2 things. 1) Either regulate the crap out of healthcare wrt price controls. Or 2) Cut the revenue stream. One way to cut the revenue stream is to tax health care benefits and allow employees to take those benefits as pay if they opt out of HI. One way to regulate HC costs is to mandate that HC providers charge everyone the same price for the same service.

The "new" HI tax penalty is far smaller for me than the existing HI tax penalty. I posted here long before this decision that I wanted to opt of my employers extremely expensive HI plan and buy one that suited my needs. My employer was willing to give me my benefit as pay. But the tax code penalized me so severely that I could only end up paying nearly the same amount in taxes and premiums for a worse plan.